首页> 外文期刊>Frontiers in Psychology >Credible Threat: Perceptions of Pandemic Coronavirus, Climate Change and the Morality and Management of Global Risks
【24h】

Credible Threat: Perceptions of Pandemic Coronavirus, Climate Change and the Morality and Management of Global Risks

机译:可信威胁:对大流行冠状病毒,气候变化以及全球风险的道德和管理的看法

获取原文
获取外文期刊封面目录资料

摘要

Prior research suggests that the pandemic coronavirus pushes all the “hot spots” for risk perceptions, yet both governments and populations have varied in their responses. As the economic impacts of the pandemic have become salient, governments have begun to slash their budgets for mitigating other global risks, including climate change, likely imposing increased future costs from those risks. Risk analysts have long argued that global environmental and health risks are inseparable at some level, and must ultimately be managed systemically, to effectively increase safety and welfare. In contrast, it has been suggested that we have worry budgets, in which one risk crowds out another. “In the wild,” our problem-solving strategies are often lexicographic; we seek and assess potential solutions one at a time, even one attribute at a time, rather than conducting integrated risk assessments. In a U.S. national survey experiment in which participants were randomly assigned to coronavirus or climate change surveys ( N = 3203) we assess risk perceptions, and whether risk perception “hot spots” are driving policy preferences, within and across these global risks. Striking parallels emerge between the two. Both risks are perceived as highly threatening, inequitably distributed, and not particularly controllable. People see themselves as somewhat informed about both risks and have moral concerns about both. In contrast, climate change is seen as better understood by science than is pandemic coronavirus. Further, individuals think they can contribute more to slowing or stopping pandemic coronavirus than climate change, and have a greater moral responsibility to do so. Survey assignment influences policy preferences, with higher support for policies to control pandemic coronavirus in pandemic coronavirus surveys, and higher support for policies to control climate change risks in climate change surveys. Across all surveys, age groups, and policies to control either climate change or pandemic coronavirus risks, support is highest for funding research on vaccines against pandemic diseases, which is the only policy that achieves majority support in both surveys. Findings bolster both the finite worry budget hypothesis and the hypothesis that supporters of policies to confront one threat are disproportionately likely also to support policies to confront the other threat.
机译:现有研究表明,大流行冠状病毒推动了风险观众的所有“热点”,但各国政府和人口都在其答复中变化。随着大流行病的经济影响变得突出,政府已开始削减其预算,以减轻其他全球风险,包括气候变化,可能会增加这些风险的未来成本。风险分析师长期以来,全球环境和健康风险在某种程度上是密不可分的,并且必须最终得到全身管理,以有效提高安全和福利。相比之下,有人建议我们有担心预算,其中一个风险众多人群。 “在野外,”我们解决的问题策略往往是词典;我们一次寻求和评估潜在的解决方案,甚至一次一个属性,而不是进行综合风险评估。在美国国家调查实验中,其中参与者被随机分配给冠状病毒或气候变化调查(n = 3203),我们评估风险感知,以及风险感知“热点”是驾驶政策偏好,在这些全球风险中和跨越这些全球风险。醒目的平方在两者之间出现。这两个风险被认为是高度威胁的,不公平分布,而不是特别可控的。人们认为自己有点了解了这两个风险,并且对两者都有道德问题。相比之下,科学的气候变化被科学更好地理解,而不是大流行冠状病毒。此外,个人认为,他们可以促进慢速或停止大流行冠状病毒而不是气候变化,并有更大的道德责任。调查作业影响政策偏好,对控制大流行冠状病毒调查中的大流行性冠状病毒进行策略的高度支持,以及对控制气候变化调查中的气候变化风险的政策的更高支持。在所有调查,年龄组和控制气候变化或大流行冠状病毒风险的政策中,对于对大流行病的疫苗进行资金研究,支持是最高的,这是唯一实现两种调查中的多数支持的政策。调查结果支持有限的担心预算假设和指责支持者的支持者对抗一个威胁的假设是不成比例地支持应对其他威胁的政策。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号